Arthur Audren de Kerdrel – Page 3 – We Make Stuff For Fun

Critical Play and Development Blog n°1 / March 2021

There is no point in beating around the bush, this was all done in 3 days, a massive time mismanagement issue on my behalf. Passing over the details, I was mistaken on the due date, and proceeded to rush this project as quickly as I could, eventually concluding in something that is subpar to the vision I had in mind.

Nevertheless, the development logs must go on. Originally, I had planned for a boardgame that mixed Stellaris and, Endless Space. All three games are heavily political and would allow me to touch onto subjects with regards to said politics. The idea was quickly shut down, as it seemed far too ambitious for the unit, and I was offered to present another project instead. This was in March 2021.

The project was, in hindsight, far too ambitious even for the time period given for this unit. Strategy games take months to build, with systems upon systems mingling politics, armies, expansion, etc. Whilst I could do something closer to the cult-classic game Diplomacy (A.B. Calhammer, 1959) renowned for its devious simplicity, or a card game based around managing one’s kingdom like Reigns (Nerial, 2016), it would simply take too much time and playtesting which I could not afford in person, due to social constraints at the time. That said, it is not something I plan on throwing aside, but something to work on for a rainy day. To clarify, this was meant as a board or card game.

I returned the next week with a “schedule stacking game”, a bizarre mix of Tetris (The Tetris Company, 1996), Tricky Towers (Weird Beard, 2016) (which already a spin on Tetris), and your average schedule planner. The goal was simple: to stack your activities during the day until they reached a line, when the line was reached the day had ended, and depending on what activities were stacked together, certain things got done. These things were necessary to progress to the next level, where the difficulty ramped up. The game would add things variables like wind force to topple the stacking unstable towers the players built, or gifting various kinds of blocks with different effects, so on and so forth.

As a game, this was far more manageable to execute, and allowed me to play around with physics. It also related closely to an issue I am diagnosed with: ADD. Attention Deficit & Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), or Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) is, according to the NHS website, a ‘condition that affects people’s behaviour. People with ADHD can seem restless, may have trouble concentrating, and may act on impulse.’ Put simply, it is a learning disorder that affects many aspects of daily life, from impulsivity to forgetfulness, restlessness, impatience, and in our case: poor organisational skills, carelessness or lack of attention for detail, inability to focus or prioritise, etc.

Ironically, that is exactly what happened with this project, but it is no excuse. People with ADD can either take medication to compensate for the lack of chemicals the condition is symptomatic of, or they can develop placebos to combat their faults. Extensive lists, agendas, alarms and constant reminders help the person go through their workdays and daily lives in order to keep things properly organised and effective. This can be relentlessly tiring.

Example of Time removing value in the game

As a result, the idea with this game was to portray that attention deficit/forgetfulness, by forcing a timer on the players. When too much time passed, one of the activities disappeared, or greyed out, losing their value in the eyes of the game. A representation that the person forgot to do it, lost interest or simply ignored it in favour of another ‘juicier’ activity. It was meant to be both a game of balance, and speed, a dichotomy that is particularly difficult to maintain.

I had discussed with Zhan, one of our tutors, the possibility of using different shapes and sizes for the game itself, and promptly went to draw out various icons to help visualise these various activities, as well as the possibility of different looking levels that would force the player to squeeze objects against one another, such as the jagged walls of a cavern, or thin corridors that forced the player to use specific types of objects/activities. In conclusion, the game itself was simple but portraying the sort of daily distress and extra step was going to be difficult. And then two weeks passed by.

Pages: 12

Labyrinth – 18 Card Game – Demo Game

Ghost VS Hunters – Demo Video

GHOST vs HUNTERS pt. 5

Final Post on this project, concluding many things. It’ll be quite short as I’ve the report next, and its mostly an update on rules and the game board.

Following the proposed changes to the map, these factors were added to it by Valeria! (I’m still amazed at her skill, I might have to steal her for some future projects.)
* Corridor room
* Entrance from Kitchen to Game Room
* Attic Room
* Rounds Counter

We believe the increase in rooms as well as the added entrance will allow Hunters to move more freely through the board. The rules have also been updated to take into account some of the faults we had in the previous version. It is using the shorter (Trini’s version) of the game!

Conference Game Rules v2.0 Download

The rules clarify that players can enter claimed/contaminated/ectoplasmed rooms. And the definition of a turn has also been updated to the new version.

Things we’d likely add/change with more time:
– A way to clear out rooms.
– Balance the ghosts and hunters’ adversity to be more balanced.

Conclusion:
The game is playable, and is a playable prototype. There are certain things that need balancing, such as the Hunter’s stalemate advantage, or the fact that Ghosts can blatantly claim a large amount of rooms from the get go, but that should be countered by the randomness and dynamic actions of the players.

We don’t have to deal with muting each other, which is a plus seeing as it helps with the cooperative/competitive aspect of the game, as well as the communal one. Its always better to hear your adversary rather than them being silent.

All in all, I had a lot of fun developing and improving my knowledge around prototyping these games, the conference call restriction was both refreshing and unexpected! Trini and Valeria were great help, and I couldn’t have done anything without them!

Ghosts VS Hunters, pt 4

Going over the rules:
Our two different set of rules were based around strategic deliberation, or quick thinking and anticipating movements. We’ll dub both versions the longer and shorter versions for the sake of simplicity.

Ghosts vs Hunters Rules V1.1 Download

Playtesting the longer version:
* Ghosts deafen themselves. Hunters deliberate on positions.
* Hunters deafen themselves. Ghosts deliberate on positions.
* Both teams reveal positions, Hunters first, and then clashes are resolved accordingly.
* Ghosts can move anywhere on the map. Hunters can only move to a room adjacent to the one they are currently stood in. Both must move to another room on their next turn.
* In a stalemate (3 ghosts vs 3 hunters in the same room), Hunters win and the Ghosts are removed from the game.

Conclusions with this version!
* Boredom: The deafened team pretty much did nothing for quite a while, which led to loss of interest from that very team until it was there turn.
* Unseen advantages: The Ghosts could claim rooms immediately that Hunters cannot reach, which then forces Hunters to play with a smaller amount of rooms.
* Poor movement: The layout of the map inhibited the Hunter team from moving properly, adding another advantage to the Ghosts’ team.
* Too slow: it takes too long to deliberate, and lacks a quick resolution, sometimes making the game exceed the assignment’s time limit.

Playtesting the shorter version!
Trini came up with this one! Essentially the execution goes as fellows:
* Teams toss coin to determine who goes first, and move to their positions. They do so by typing their position in the chat at the same time as the rest of their team.
* Clashes are revealed on the end of the Hunter Team’s turn.
* Ghosts can move anywhere on the map. Hunters can only move to a room adjacent to the one they are currently stood in. Both must move to another room on their next turn.
* In a stalemate (3 ghosts vs 3 hunters in the same room), Hunters win and the Ghosts are removed from the game.

Conclusions with this version!
* Stalemates are still favorable to the Hunters, Ghosts may still claim 3 rooms before Hunters can do anything.
* Less strategic, more random and impromptu. This solves both the boredom and slowness of the previous game, by letting things become a bit more chaotic.
* Still the issue of movement for Hunters.

After playtesting with other members of the course, we decided that adding two additional rooms and a pathway to from the kitchen to the Game Room would grant Hunters sufficient an edge to go toe to toe with the other team. These are the proposed changes:

*The addition of the corridor room and the placement of the door from the Kitchen to the Game Room would help. Finally, an attic will be added later on.*

Final Thoughts on Session:
During playtesting, players expressed they prefered the shorter version as it gave more dynamics to the game, and I agree. It felt better are more reactive than the longer, more strategic version.

There was also talk of a way for Hunters to ‘unclaim’ rooms. These rooms had been claimed by Ghosts taking their turn to move towards it, so long as it wasn’t occupied by a Hunter. However we felt as if players didn’t understand that Hunters could enter already claimed rooms safely, rather than stay out of them. This could have prevented a number of Hunter losses during playtest so that’ll be improved later on.

Sadly, we couldn’t completely get rid of the Game Master, someone still needs to set up the board and note people’s placements down. The only way to properly get it replaced would be digitally.

Case Study: Thief, the Dark Project

Thief: The Dark Project is 20 years old, and you should play it today • Eurogamer.net

INTRODUCTION:
Thief, the Dark Project (hereby known as Thief), is a game developed by Looking Glass games, and published by Eidos Interactive in 1998.

Thief a first person stealth game, focused on the fantasy of emulating a thief in a gaslamp fantasy setting, called the City. You play as Garret, a master thief taught to sneak and steal by an elusive origanisation of thieves called the Keepers. With an arsenal of various arrows (noise, water, fire, rope, moss, etc), a blackjack to knock out enemies, a sword to kill or defend yourself, health potions, holy water for undead, and so on.

Disclaimer! Much of the following is from my own personal experience, and analysis during gameplay.

THE TOOLS FOR THE TRADE:
As a master thief, Garrett’s goal is to simply pay rent. He needs cash, so any kind of thief’s job is no trouble for him, and the more he can acquire the happier he is. However things get complicated over the course of the story, when he gets roped up into pagan cults and zealous crusaders wanting to skin him alive. As Garrett isn’t the best fighter, he’ll have to skulk around the various levels of the game to avoid getting caught. To do this, Thief makes effective use of three factors: movement, sound and light.

LIGHT: The game has a light meter (known as the Light Gem) that scales between full and empty depending where the player is standing. Shadows obstruct a guard’s field of view, and thus make the player’s shape difficul to spot, whilst light will make the player’s form obvious. These areas are visibly obvious, if an area is darker than another, then the light there is dimmer. In Thief, you are advised to stay in the shadows, and avoid the light.

Light Gem | Thief Wiki | Fandom — *Light Gem scaling from empty/unlit (the bar to the right is empty), to full/lit (the bar to the right is coloured red).*

The player can use the light gem to determine if they are in any light source, or in complete shadows. If they are in an area of pitch darkness, moving will cause the light meter to increase a bit. Certain objects emit light, such as torches, fireplaces and lanterns. The two former can be extinguished using water arrows in Garrett’s quiver.

Thief Gold Guide | GamersOnLinux — *A screenshot of the 1rst level, the black and white stone tiles will cause loud sounds, whilst the carpet muffles all sound. In the corner is a torch, that can be snuffed out using water arrows.*

SOUND: Certain surfaces produce sound when walked upon, such as solid iron floors, or tiling. The sound is produced at regular intervals, and will attract guards even if cloaked in shadows. Consequentially, the player must seek out surfaces such as wood, stone floors, or even carpet to muffle their steps (dirt works as well, but gravel is the bane of any thief).

This works both ways! Guards whistle or mumble to themselves when bored, making it easy to gauge their distance from you if unseen. Their footsteps carry sound as well, allowing you to figure out when to come out of hiding, or when to strike; if multiple guards are in a same room, the game’s sound design is clear enough to determine an approximate amount. Finally if other louder noises are blaring through the game, such as a forge or an alarm of some kind, then they can be used to drown out your own movement and footsteps.

MOVEMENT: How Garrett moves is important, as it becomes a synergy between both factors. Walking quickly will make noise, sneaking and crouching around will make you too slow to catch up to guards or (later on) run away from undead & monsters. Furthermore, what you move on, or past whom, will factor into your stealth to ensure you don’t get caught. Movement in Thief is slow and methodical, even whilst running, and helps emphasise the thief like fantasy.

As a player, you are undetectable if you are: not moving, in complete shadow, and making no sound. Anything short of that risks detection, and to further the gameplay and risks induced Garrett isn’t a great fighter. Most guards will slay him in two hits, but it takes five or six to kill a single guard, four to kill priests and civilians.

Regardless, by making use of these elements, Thief creates a tense gameplay that emphasises the necessity of stealth. The health imbalance, the importance of sound and light mechanics help the player get into Garrett’s skin, and think like him. At first the movement and attempts are clunky, with missed blackjack strikes or mis steps into the light, but eventually you grow to master the game. When to save your arrows? Which guards should you avoid, and which should you take down? Where should you hide, and where is it safe to run?

What’s important is that Thief is considered a pioneer of stealth/action games, who makes use of light & sound mechanics in addition to the typical line-of-sight detection mechanics other stealth games already possessed at the time. Metal Gear Solid (1998) comes to mind. Its sound system revolutionised the method stealth games were played, as it brought a new auditive dimension to gameplay. Audio was even central to the game’s design! (Gamasutra – Postmortem: Thief: The Dark Project, pg. 2)

So the question is, why am I making a case about this? Simple: for my final major project I plan on building a stealth game myself.

Pages: 12

18 Card Game: Conclusion… ish (5/5)

Following another check up with David King, Jacky and I went over the rules once again to make its presentation clearer. Key words are now in bold, colours are specifically made to refer to certain types of cards (red is for Challenges, blue is for Boons). Finally, images were pieced up and used to properly convey the game’s set up, movement, and clarifications.

In addition to this, Jacky went over the cards again to make them more printer-friendly, following what Luke Head said about player accessibility and his concerns thereof. As seen above, they were moved from coloured, parchment like cards, to something black and white, being more cost effective and easier to print for those without very performing machines.

It also grants the cards an old school aesthetic, found mostly in many CYOA (choose you own adventure) books, like the Lone Wolf series by Joe Denver, Ben Devere & Vincent Lazzari. (1984 – current). The most notorious artist/illustrator of the series being Gary Chalk.

REVIEW: Fire on the Water – Gamebook News — *Fire on the Water, “Lone Wolf” artwork, Gary Chalk, 1984*

This will emphasise the theme we’re going for (fantasy dungeon/labyrinth), as well as give a certain charm to the cards that can be found in those old books or old fantasy editions.

The game itself is mostly complete, and is in a playable state now. All that remains is for the cards to be set up in a printable document, and the rules can be printed out properly as well.

Here is a final draft of the rules, accessible through this link:
[Link].

18 CARD GAME: An aesthetic touch up. (4/5)

Following some criticism and returns during our last presentation last week, Jacky decided to come up with a card back that communicated something instead of random lines. The original design was mistaken as communicating something when in fact it was simply just a few lines.

Playtesters believed that cards had to align (when faced down) connecting between both lines to create a path. This was unintentional, but we decided to roll with it and came up with a different card backing design that helped with the game’s layout, as well as understanding how players could move across the board.

*So because Jacky is way better at graphic design than I, here are the card backings he drew up after deliberation!*

Now each card as a symbol to dissociate between BOONS (in blue) and CHALLENGES (in red.) Boons also have a wind like symbol, whilst the challenges have a clashing symbol, which will allow players to apprehend and anticipate their trajectory through the maze/labyrinth.

Finally each card was styled to resemble a room, using stone walls as their borders, and they all have a path that shows how players might move around the board, that is to say towards any other adjacent card to the card currently stood upon. This design will avoid confusion when setting up and traversing the game board.

*An example of how players might move through the board, see how the lines connect to show the potential trajectory a player might take.*

We also began drafting more cohesive rules, and changed the set up to have something quicker.
* 5 cards are drawn from the deck and placed between both character cards.
* 3 cards are then drawn from the deck by both players again, and placed adjacent to this original lane.
* 2 cards are then drawn and placed into the player’s hand, these cards can then be used on the player’s respective turns to switch out with one card on the board, or placed adjacent to another card.

*The set up should look something akin to the image above, with no cards in the draw pile, on in the discard pile, and both players ought to have 2 cards in their hands at the beginning of the game.*

Reflections on the Design Process so far:

I had previous made a card game during my Bachelor’s course, called Stranded Space, which was a single player card game with a randomised path, like this one. Though far more mechanical than the current game, the design process was mostly the same.

Conceptualise
Rough playtest
Asset Making
Clarify rules
Internal Playtesting (between both members of the group)
External Playtesting (between outsiders or with 1 member of the group)
Reiterate according to experience recorded

One major issue of playtesting this game is that due to travel restrictions we could only experience the parts of the game that require less physical interaction. Two solutions then come to mind, either we can focus the challenges onto something more accessible and less constraining, for example: the Wraiths card challenges both players to get on the ground (“play dead”). The quickest on the ground wins.

Or we can playtest with others during the holidays to get a proper grip at how the game might play when physicality is involved, which is the final plan. We’re approaching the final development blog, so I’ll have something larger at the ready seeing as this was merely a quick update on card backs and the explanation of their design.

18 Card Game 2: The Reckoning (3/5)

Alrighty then. After the internal playtesting session we had on Monday, a few conclusions can be… well concluded. Also, Jacky came up with some sweet card designs.

*They look amazing, and the card design is pretty clear. (They look sick!) The card is composed of an illustration, a movement number (top right corner), and a challenge description in the bottom half.*

The movement rules and game rules lacked clarity. I ended up moving forwards more times than necessary and won too quickly. This action was a far better choice than drawing a card or switching things about.
Card placement needs clarification, the idea was to create one’s own path or force the opponent into a path, sadly this was never used except to lengthen the path of the enemy.
When we lost a challenge and were pushed back, we weren’t sure if the flipped card was to be tried again.
Just overall clarity.

Pages: 12

18 CARD GAME 2 (pt.2/5)

Well, that was stressful. After spending some time in vocal chat detailing the three concepts we had in for this brief. Through the use of quick slides describing the prototypes or ideas each student had in mind. The groups disscussed and deliberated amongst one another what would work, what is preferred, which proposal we think would work well; which leads us to Jack and I’s own project.

Taken from Jacky’s blog – this is the criticism and conclusions we drew before deliberating on which game we’d choose move on with:

“Railwaymaker: needed development, and more refining. I believe it lacks strucuture, there were no instructions to play a round. The rules regarding the card placement needed to be clarified too.

Matching war: A theme was absent, however it had clear rules. The mechanics were simple enough and quick to understand.

Labyrinth: Balance of gameplay is heavily skewed towards one player, other player could be left with nothing to do for a lot of the game.”

Labyrinth was chosen out of the three games we presented, which frankly came to me as a surprise. I expected the Matching Pairs to not make it, but the Railway card game seemed as fleshed out as Labyrinth was. In hindsight, I feel like the latter had a clearer destination, and a few qualities that (probably) steered the two of us to work on it.

Unique card designs.
Competitiveness.
Player agency through constructing the maze.

Pages: 12